Article Title

Authors

Abstract

The author traces the common thread running through the analysis of judicial review by the symposium speakers. He posits that while all three speakers support equally activist positions, their allegiance to divergent values and political theories results in their opposed statements on the activist debate. He compares the dialogue in this symposium to that of the Justices in the 1940's, which discourse explicitly was grounded in a struggle over values. The author concludes that courts must structure the form of their opinions in a manner which clearly demonstrates the relationship between the chosen social values and the resulting decision.